Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (7087)	9/26/1998 9:31:00 PM
From: dougjn	Respond to of 13994

<<Judges and such are regularly impeached for stuff like drunk driving and what not.>> Federal judges under the Federal constitution. I am not aware of instances of that. I have repeatedly said that a crime, if High, or serious enough, could be an impeachable offense, even if it does not involve misuse of office. I have specifically mentioned murder as an example. Judges have been removed for perjury. Now lets say first a few things. Federal judges are appointed for life. The only way of removing them, ever, is impeachment. Also, they explicitly serve for life subject to their good behavior. Most Constitutional scholars believe the standards for removing judges are and should be less than removing a President. Having said that, I have still also said many times that perjury could often be a reason for removing the President. If the underlying behavior behing covered up was sufficient grave. Even if it didn't involve the President's behavior. For example, perjury covering up a friend or subordinates participation in bribery. But IF there was perjury here (which I am now convinced there was not, as legally defined and under criminal standards of proof), if was of the smallest and most understandable, and forgiveable perjury imaginable. Lying in a frivolus civil suit, subsequently dismissed for failure to show any plausible case for any damages at all, in a line of questions that was highly collateral and should never have been asked, and which the Judge herself later threw out as not necessary for the fair determination of Paula Jones rights. In fact the last point makes anything Clinton said about Lewinsky in the Jones case absolutely not perjury period. Further, his tried very hard to be misleading, and slippery, without actually misstaing a narrow fact. Thus he stayed within the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court. exchange2000.com Doug